Trump promises - millions of jobs. Check. - stronger military. Check. - no free press. Check. - top down managing of economy. Check. Hm yeah communism soon tm  Millions of jobs? He gave millions of jobs? To who? Last time I checked it didn't happen... Promises  @valery That is why i wrote "soon tm"  |
|
|
|
Emphasis cleared and added
Half-truths and deliberate distortions of facts are sometimes even worse than outright lies. The quote you posted talks about the price of gasoline at the pump and the transportation costs relative to that price, but it says basically nothing about the percentage of these costs in the price of crude oil itself (as it is quoted at major exchanges). Further, it talks about percentages when the price of oil had been rising (e.g. in early 2008 it reached 140 dollars per barrel) but since then it collapsed a few times, though I don't think that transportation costs plunges as much (if at all)
Uhm you didnt understand what you read. What you bolded means that transportation cost adds 5-10% to the production cost. For example if production cost in saudi arabia is 10$ per barrel in field x then transportation to the US would cost around 0.50$ to 1.00$ per barrel Obviously, you didn't understand what I wrote The part you refer to does actually say about 5-10% of transportation costs in the total price of oil. But it says nothing about at which crude oil price these percentages were calculated. It just says that the prices were rising since 2000 (while in fact they have already fallen dramatically as you know yourself). Furthermore (or rather before), it compares the transportation costs with the price of gasoline at the pump which is bullshit since the price of crude oil in the gasoline prices may itself be only a few dozen percentages. Given that (i.e. deliberate misleading by the authors), we can assume that 10% may be calculated from the ATH oil price, i.e. 140 dollars per barrel, and then the transportation costs will amount to over 10 dollars per barrel. Now compare these costs with the oil price from, say, Saudi Arabia and you will see how high the transportation costs might in reality be No you are wrong on everything. Maybe this is more clear: http://graphics.wsj.com/oil-barrel-breakdown/Important note: the transportation cost is even less becauses they added administration cost to transportation cost I'm curious if you actually read that piece It basically says about transportation (plus administrative) costs as they stand for delivery to their nearest consumers. For Iran it would be China, for Iraq the EU. If Iran (or Saudi Arabia) had to transport their oil to the US, the transportation costs would rise massively. Nevertheless, your link confirms what I suspected, i.e. that the data in the quote you posted earlier is heavily distorted. The transportation costs are nowhere near 5-10% as the authors of that quote claimed. For example, for the KSA they are over 27%, for Iran over 29%, for Iraq over 23% per total cost of oil barrel. As to me, this is a huge percentage Where does it say that this is the transportation cost to the nearest consumer? The wsj is from 2016 so its obvious that numbers changed from 2008. Like i said in my last post that nominal the transport cost is very similiar but because of differences in production cost it differs % wise. For example look at the uk. Transportation+administration cost is just 9,7%. But lets take an real life example with an exact price from Sep. 2016: The rates for shipping a tanker-load of crude oil by Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC) from Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port for the throughput and storage of crude oil, to Singapore, the world’s largest crude oil transshipment center, have dropped another $200,000 since the last assessment, to $2.25 million, according to S&P Global Platts, the lowest level for that route since Platts started tracking VLCC data in 2006. We have a distance of around 13.000 km (around the same distance from saudi arabia to the USA). A VLCC usually transports 1,9 - 2,2 million barrels. At 50$/bbl its worth 100 million $. Transportation cost is 2,25 million $. Edit Btw. The book i quoted is up to date. The newest edition is from 2017. It is also used in universities. Edit 2 Shipping prices are extremely volatile. I just looked up the price difference to charter a VLCC between jan. 2016 and sep. 2016. It was a 60+% difference. But to take the example above even if the shipping price was 4 times higher we would still just barely scratch the 10% mark for transportation cost. |
|
|
|
The American frackers don't have the flexibility which Saudi Arabia and Russia enjoys. Their rigs are located in complicated terrain, and it takes some time to either start, or to shut down the pumping of crude oil. Finding the labor force is another hassle. If they pump crude oil at full speed now, then the oil prices will crash and their revenues will take a hit. Yes and no. The US frackers are preparing for trumps US oil independence. Of course they wont be able to compete with the sauds, russia or iran except in the case trump will enact a tariff for importing oil - which he said he will. Slapping an import tax on foreign oil is going to anger a lot of Americans. It isn't going to make American oil more competitive by magically reducing the cost of it. It's going to drive up the cost of oil domestically because we'll be using more domestic oil which costs more to produce. That cost will go straight to consumers. It's not a practical solution, and if he tries t he's going to find it politically untenable. Yes i agree. But that is the only way to archieve US oil independence. We know that the US has enough oil it is just too expensive to extract. Edit He could also remove enviromental safety laws regarding fracking/oil extraction which could further lower the production cost. If i remember right he wanted to do that too. Oil independence at that cost isn't worth it. What is the benefit of not using foreign oil when domestic gas prices are artificially high because you have a protectionist agenda in place? The country would be oil independent if it put more focus into renewables and you wouldn't have any of the negative consequences to the environment on top of it. Fracking is already incredibly dirty, and that's when companies are following the rules that are in place. Yup, i agree. But trump doesnt agree. And that is pretty much all he can do if he wants to proceed with his plan. |
|
|
|
Edit The world tanker fleet capacity (excluding tankers owned or chartered on long-term basis for military use by governments) was about 280 million deadweight tons in 2002. There are roughly 3,500 tankers available on the international oil transportation market. The cost of hiring a tanker is known as the charter rate. It varies according to the size and characteristics of the tanker, its origin, destination and the availability of ships, although larger ships are preferred due to the economies of scale they confer. About 435 VLCCs account for a third of the oil being carried. Transportation costs account for a small percentage of the total cost of gasoline at the pump. For instance, oil carried from the Middle East to the United States account for about 1 cent per liter at the pump. Transportation costs have conventionally accounted for between 5 to 10% of the added value of oil depending on the market being serviced. The growth in oil prices since 2000 makes the transport costs an even lower component of the total costs, sometimes lower than 5%. Demand for oil is thus not related (inelastic) to its transport costs.
SourceEmphasis cleared and added Half-truths and deliberate distortions of facts are sometimes even worse than outright lies. The quote you posted talks about the price of gasoline at the pump and the transportation costs relative to that price, but it says basically nothing about the percentage of these costs in the price of crude oil itself (as it is quoted at major exchanges). Further, it talks about percentages when the price of oil had been rising (e.g. in early 2008 it reached 140 dollars per barrel) but since then it collapsed a few times, though I don't think that transportation costs plunges as much (if at all) Uhm you didnt understand what you read. What you bolded means that transportation cost adds 5-10% to the production cost. For example if production cost in saudi arabia is 10$ per barrel in field x then transportation to the US would cost around 0.50$ to 1.00$ per barrel Obviously, you didn't understand what I wrote The part you refer to does actually say about 5-10% of transportation costs in the total price of oil. But it says nothing about at which crude oil price these percentages were calculated. It just says that the prices were rising since 2000 (while in fact they have already fallen dramatically as you know yourself). Furthermore (or rather before), it compares the transportation costs with the price of gasoline at the pump which is bullshit since the price of crude oil in the gasoline prices may itself be only a few dozen percentages. Given that (i.e. deliberate misleading by the authors), we can assume that 10% may be calculated from the ATH oil price, i.e. 140 dollars per barrel, and then the transportation costs will amount to over 10 dollars per barrel. Now compare these costs with the oil price from, say, Saudi Arabia and you will see how high the transportation costs might in reality be No you are wrong on everything. Maybe this is more clear: http://graphics.wsj.com/oil-barrel-breakdown/Important note: the transportation cost is even less becauses they added administration cost to transportation cost. You can see nominal transportation cost is very similiar. % wise it looks a bit different but the reason should be more then obvious. |
|
|
|
Edit The world tanker fleet capacity (excluding tankers owned or chartered on long-term basis for military use by governments) was about 280 million deadweight tons in 2002. There are roughly 3,500 tankers available on the international oil transportation market. The cost of hiring a tanker is known as the charter rate. It varies according to the size and characteristics of the tanker, its origin, destination and the availability of ships, although larger ships are preferred due to the economies of scale they confer. About 435 VLCCs account for a third of the oil being carried. Transportation costs account for a small percentage of the total cost of gasoline at the pump. For instance, oil carried from the Middle East to the United States account for about 1 cent per liter at the pump. Transportation costs have conventionally accounted for between 5 to 10% of the added value of oil depending on the market being serviced. The growth in oil prices since 2000 makes the transport costs an even lower component of the total costs, sometimes lower than 5%. Demand for oil is thus not related (inelastic) to its transport costs.
SourceEmphasis cleared and added Half-truths and deliberate distortions of facts are sometimes even worse than outright lies. The quote you posted talks about the price of gasoline at the pump and the transportation costs relative to that price, but it says basically nothing about the percentage of these costs in the price of crude oil itself (as it is quoted at major exchanges). Further, it talks about percentages when the price of oil had been rising (e.g. in early 2008 it reached 140 dollars per barrel) but since then it collapsed a few times, though I don't think that transportation costs plunges as much (if at all) Uhm you didnt understand what you read. What you bolded means that transportation cost adds 5-10% to the production cost. For example if production cost in saudi arabia is 10$ per barrel in field x then transportation to the US would cost around 0.50$ to 1.00$ per barrel. Lower/higher oil price dont change much on transportation cost (% wise) because you have simultaneously lower/higher energy prices for the transport part. |
|
|
|
It is going to be extremely difficult for Marine Le Pen. In the first round, I have no doubt that she is going to win. But in the second round, all the mainstream parties are going to unite against her. I am still curious about who will be her opponent in the second round. If it is either Benoît Hamon or François Fillon, then there is a small chance for Le Pen. But zero chance if her opponent is Emmanuel Macron.
I see it the same way. Everyone is going to team up once Le Pen is in second round (thus, she is the only opposition to mainstream that French have). Not impossible, just very, very difficult. Also unlike Trump. Le Pen has been part of party politics for some years now. People know her, where as part of Trumps appeal was the fact, that he was never politician in the first place.I think this is the most important point. She and her family are part of the political world for a very long time. Her father who founded the party is an outspoken antisemit. Pretty sure she is too. |
|
|
|
The American frackers don't have the flexibility which Saudi Arabia and Russia enjoys. Their rigs are located in complicated terrain, and it takes some time to either start, or to shut down the pumping of crude oil. Finding the labor force is another hassle. If they pump crude oil at full speed now, then the oil prices will crash and their revenues will take a hit. Yes and no. The US frackers are preparing for trumps US oil independence. Of course they wont be able to compete with the sauds, russia or iran except in the case trump will enact a tariff for importing oil - which he said he will. Slapping an import tax on foreign oil is going to anger a lot of Americans. It isn't going to make American oil more competitive by magically reducing the cost of it. It's going to drive up the cost of oil domestically because we'll be using more domestic oil which costs more to produce. That cost will go straight to consumers. It's not a practical solution, and if he tries t he's going to find it politically untenable. Trump never said anything like this. He said that he may impose a tariff on the imports from Mexico, including crude oil and refined products. But if such a tariff is imposed, then the American consumer will just purchase Canadian crude instead of the Mexican crude. Just look up US oil independency and trump. And oil tariffs are inevitable for the US oil independency because neither the US(40-50$), Canada(50++$) nor mexico(23$)can compete with opec and russia(1-10$) You are obviously missing at least one important thing Maybe, you miss even more (everyone is welcome to chime in on this), but to make a valid comparison between costs you should include all costs. More specifically, you forgot to include transportation (delivery) costs as well as the max volume that the cheap oil exporters can provide. Indeed, Mexico (and Venezuela, for that matter) is not very far from the US (its oil processing facilities), but as I get it, they simply can't possibly satisfy all the demand for oil in the US, so the American frackers with their expensive oil can still survive Transportation cost is not the problem. It is really just the difference in production cost here. Depending on compared oil fields we have a 5-50x difference. The main thing though is that trump wants to stop imports from OPEC and non friendly states. And without import tariffs he wont be able to do so - russian and middle east oil is just too cheap. Edit The world tanker fleet capacity (excluding tankers owned or chartered on long-term basis for military use by governments) was about 280 million deadweight tons in 2002. There are roughly 3,500 tankers available on the international oil transportation market. The cost of hiring a tanker is known as the charter rate. It varies according to the size and characteristics of the tanker, its origin, destination and the availability of ships, although larger ships are preferred due to the economies of scale they confer. About 435 VLCCs account for a third of the oil being carried. Transportation costs account for a small percentage of the total cost of gasoline at the pump. For instance, oil carried from the Middle East to the United States account for about 1 cent per liter at the pump. Transportation costs have conventionally accounted for between 5 to 10% of the added value of oil depending on the market being serviced. The growth in oil prices since 2000 makes the transport costs an even lower component of the total costs, sometimes lower than 5%. Demand for oil is thus not related (inelastic) to its transport costs.
Source |
|
|
|
^ Nice conspiracy theories you two |
|
|
|
Putin is not our friend, to say the least.
Perhaps that is true. But I don't think that he is the enemy as well. The real enemy for the European civilization is the hordes of immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa. Russia and Putin is not a threat to the European culture. If Putin isn't enemy for Europe, why he is keeping huge army forces in Kaliningrad - it's most militarized region of Russia. Their military exercise Zapad 2017 can be one of the preparations how to cut off land road to Baltic states, so called Suwalki koridor. Kaliningrad is a Russian enclave surrounded by hostile forces on all sides. And in addition to that, the NATO has conducted multiple military exercises close to the Kaliningrad border. Russia is doing the right thing by defending the enclave. Come on. Nato exercises usually includes just some thousand of soldiers (in relation to russias 10s of thousand). In an emergency case russia would just need to fart and the nato soldiers would run. Nato wont fight a conventional war with russia. We know from the cold war that this is not possible. |
|
|
|
I still dont get it. Jews hold majority of all power(politics/economy) and science(academics) position in the world. Jews = nazi nwo?  |
|
|
|
Trump promises - millions of jobs. Check. - stronger military. Check. - no free press. Check. - top down managing of economy. Check. Hm yeah communism soon tm |
|
|
|
Well this is what you got when you put someone like Donald Trump as President of US of A. Freedom of the Press? what?
So you liberals are suddenly going ballistic for the press freedom, right? Have you forgot the verbal abuse showered on Fox News and Breitbart News Network, for their pro-conservative views? You just can't have it both ways. Can you tell us on which occassion(s) obama did that? |
|
|
|
|
Good to see that most people here give a shit about freedom of the press and free speech.
But well who wonders east europeans dont have that link with free press especially our dear russian friends.
Btw. Fact is that on average trump lies 3 times in every press conference - i think die lügenpresse could learn a lot from trump lol
|
|
|
|
The American frackers don't have the flexibility which Saudi Arabia and Russia enjoys. Their rigs are located in complicated terrain, and it takes some time to either start, or to shut down the pumping of crude oil. Finding the labor force is another hassle. If they pump crude oil at full speed now, then the oil prices will crash and their revenues will take a hit. Yes and no. The US frackers are preparing for trumps US oil independence. Of course they wont be able to compete with the sauds, russia or iran except in the case trump will enact a tariff for importing oil - which he said he will. Slapping an import tax on foreign oil is going to anger a lot of Americans. It isn't going to make American oil more competitive by magically reducing the cost of it. It's going to drive up the cost of oil domestically because we'll be using more domestic oil which costs more to produce. That cost will go straight to consumers. It's not a practical solution, and if he tries t he's going to find it politically untenable. Trump never said anything like this. He said that he may impose a tariff on the imports from Mexico, including crude oil and refined products. But if such a tariff is imposed, then the American consumer will just purchase Canadian crude instead of the Mexican crude. Just look up US oil independency and trump. And oil tariffs are inevitable for the US oil independency because neither the US(40-50$), Canada(50++$) nor mexico(23$)can compete with opec and russia(1-10$). |
|
|
|
The American frackers don't have the flexibility which Saudi Arabia and Russia enjoys. Their rigs are located in complicated terrain, and it takes some time to either start, or to shut down the pumping of crude oil. Finding the labor force is another hassle. If they pump crude oil at full speed now, then the oil prices will crash and their revenues will take a hit. Yes and no. The US frackers are preparing for trumps US oil independence. Of course they wont be able to compete with the sauds, russia or iran except in the case trump will enact a tariff for importing oil - which he said he will. Slapping an import tax on foreign oil is going to anger a lot of Americans. It isn't going to make American oil more competitive by magically reducing the cost of it. It's going to drive up the cost of oil domestically because we'll be using more domestic oil which costs more to produce. That cost will go straight to consumers. It's not a practical solution, and if he tries t he's going to find it politically untenable. Yes i agree. But that is the only way to archieve US oil independence. We know that the US has enough oil it is just too expensive to extract. Edit He could also remove enviromental safety laws regarding fracking/oil extraction which could further lower the production cost. If i remember right he wanted to do that too. |
|
|
|
The problem with the price vs OPEC reductions is many countries keep a strategic central store of oil. China is a giant size country with almost no oil under control by itself, how can it aspire to be a future superpower if unable to even supply itself and its army. They store much oil and keep this as a buffer to any reduction in supply vs their own growing supply.
The alteration in supply is an ongoing that effect that will take years to unfold in the price. When supplies everywhere are low vs demand which itself must grow in order that OPEC is proved correct in its projections then you have a rising price effect.
World growth is not as strong as it should, many large countries have a population with average age below 30 and the expansion is quite below what it could be.
I believe China is buying into various oil deposits with its reduced dollar holdings and will not be part of OPEC or any control of price. Russia and USA are both outside OPEC and are possibly not restricting supply though Russia has agreed in theory, nobody is ever sure they can be trusted.
Fracking is a long term effect, its mostly that this oil source exists at all. Its in effect a technology rival to old oil large operations, long term we know technology will replace oil just like coal passed by into a more minor role
That should be their strategy if they are planning on using oil. But i think right now everything points to renewables. China just bought the biggest cobalt producer of the world in kongo and holds majority of the production now. Cobalt is mainly used for electric car batteries. The newest energy study says that china is progressing much faster on renewables as anticipated ( https://newclimate.org/2017/02/09/a-turnaround-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emission-trends-on-the-horizon-regardless-of-pres-trump/ ) Looking at the enviromental destruction and contamination china has no choice anyway - they still have like 500 million people who want to drive cars, have smartphones etc. Pp. I cant think of oil and coal as a choice for them. They have to say goodbye to it in the medium term (until 2050?). |
|
|
|
The American frackers don't have the flexibility which Saudi Arabia and Russia enjoys. Their rigs are located in complicated terrain, and it takes some time to either start, or to shut down the pumping of crude oil. Finding the labor force is another hassle. If they pump crude oil at full speed now, then the oil prices will crash and their revenues will take a hit. Yes and no. The US frackers are preparing for trumps US oil independence. Of course they wont be able to compete with the sauds, russia or iran except in the case trump will enact a tariff for importing oil - which he said he will. |
|
|
|
Uh.
You get US citizenship easily in 1-2 years if you work in certain sectors or you invest 100k $ in an US venture (it depends on your origin too - people from the UK, Canada or germany will have it much easier as some nepalese or sub sahara african). No. It doesn't depend on your origin. It doesn't matter if you are from Somalia or Iceland. The visas are given irrespective of the nationality. And the amount is not $100K. The EB5 visa requires a minimum investment of $500,000 to $1,000,000 (depending on the jurisdiction). There are other requirements as well, such as the creation of jobs for a minimum of 10 US nationals. Please research because you either are misinformed or not informed at all. 1. It depends on country of origin, because the US has contigents. Currently, no group of permanent immigrants (family-based and employment-based) from a single country can exceed seven percent of the total amount of people immigrating to the United States in a single fiscal year. It behaves similar for the diversity visa program. 2. Im talking about the E-2 visa which on the low end needs 75.000$. Edit I researched a bit more and there is actually a huge problem with the naturalisation process. There exist a backlog of over 500.000 cases and over 350.000 are from south america and mexico. http://newobserveronline.com/512190-backlog-us-immigration-courts/ |
|
|
|
Do you even realize that it is a common practice on Google?
It's Google, it's a private company. You're all crying to leftists who want to take away your freedom but here it's just Google using its freedom as a company.
And they have the right to censor any site they want for any reason they might have.
A company that has a monopoly and misuses it can be broken up. This happened to Standard Oil and AT&T. You realize you are talking about a free search engine? One of hundreds of free search engines? The problem is the majority of retarded people on this planet. If breathing oxygen wouldnt be a reflex they would forget to do it. Nobody forces you to use google. Just use a different free search engine. Problem solved and you are even hurting evil google economically. Win-win situation. |
|
|
|
How often did i told you guys that we should just stop selling until bitcoin goes to 100.000$. This is so easy to do!!!! Just stop selling!!  Some life advice. Go and look up "game theory" and do some reading. No no no. Fake news. Alternative facts. Just dont press the SELL button!!! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
